The onus is on the digital property owner and those who want to safeguard their property. They must enforce this. If you can access something a copy has already been made and is sitting on the user's computer whether an individual, corporation, organization, government or any other entity likes it or not. The internet you browse downloads onto your computer - that's how computers work. Want to safeguard your property? Either don't upload it or make it secure via a proven system that will definitely prevent all users from saving or accessing the content, and restricts access to those who have paid for it.

My suggestion is for there to be a photographers' URL prefix (wwwp.) which can only be accessed by a subscription fee. Anyone posting good or valid content to that prefix shares a portion of the total subcription fee acquired from users.
I would happily subscribe knowing that I will not be targeted by internet police, whoever they may be, and that I can freely use the content without any hinderance. This is the type of system I refer to that should be enforced. Obviously the subscription fee can be abused and normally is by managers who expect to own a garage bulging with all the latest top model SUV's. It's the indulgences of the corrupt top management that puts everyday users into re-occuring predicament. Which is why something like this should be setup and run by users or a non-profit organisation. Abuse at the top breeds abuse at the bottom.

Another thought is that photographic content is being depreciated everytime a digital camera is sold. Professional photos are undercut by the free content uploaded by everyday users. This is a fact and professionals will just have to become innovative and build good relations with their clientel and creating photo libraries for sale as photo DVD's, etcetra.

“so deal with it”

Lol, I just have to say, great comments from everyone, and nothing bugs me, but this remark always makes me laugh no matter who says it. As if you have no say in how something affects you. No, I don’t think I’ll ‘deal with it” thank you very much, but thanks.

As for some of the responses, I think my original point may have been misunderstood in some of the responses I read. I’m not pro or anti-CC either way. I have no horse in this race one way or the other.

“Yes, this is just another person who doesn't "get it." People mark their work as CC because they WANT it to be used freely..”

Woolie, I get it. Problem I see is that there are differing interpretations for the CC license and its use(s)–nobody seems to agree on anything. Look at the difference of opinions in just eight or so comments here alone.

(As for sharing, I totally get that and think it’s a great thing to share content with others.)

However, I’m coming at it from the POV of someone who sees people using the CC as some kind of shield to prevent misuse of their images. Good luck ‘cause it ain’t gonna happen. Locks are for honest people and the person who wants your image will use it no matter what you say or do. Many photographers, pro or amateur, on Flickr or elsewhere complain about not getting proper credit or getting ripped off because they thought CC was going to protect them like some shield–then act surprised when it doesn’t. You need to look no further than Perez Hilton, who pretty much uses any image he wants without compensation or credit to anyone.

(I’m also coming at it form the POV of someone who has had ideas/concepts ripped off where no CC would’ve helped. Sidebar to the discussion here, but that area is even more grey, because even though there’s an assumed copyright held by the author of the ideas, it’s the final execution that determines how close something was to the original, which is much tougher to enforce legally. Agencies run into this all the time, and if something they did looks too close to another commercial, they just called it an 'homage.’ ;-p )

And for the record, when I seek out images for use, I’ll pay if need be, negotiate a fee, credit, etc., whatever the author wants.

As to Jim’s points, I think in the case of switching back and forth, perhaps this is a case where people feel the more irons they have in the ‘protection’ fire, the better. Perhaps not realizing though that some of those protections don’t work or play well with others.

In its simplest form the argument is around asking permission for use. There really isn't much else to talk about. Use of CC is fine if you understand it and the potential ramifications that faces you. Most people do not. If you're serious about photography then Creative Commons is not a viable alternative. Creative Commons licenses are permanent and as I've blogged about and discussed with Wired.com bloggers, Flickr should not be able to let users switch back and forth. If you read the fine print once you open Pandora's Box with CC on your image that's it. Even if you did successfully track down every instance of your image used at that point you're going to have a hell of a time trying to argue infringement let alone seek damages. Photographers need to be smart and stay informed. Jumping on the bandwagon with out second thought is only going to undermine ones efforts.

I have 6 web sites that host my images and I no longer use watermarking and therefore they are ‘free for the stealing’ and only if I am lucky enough will I come across them in the future.

The reason I don’t use CC is because for each photo that will ultimately go to print I tend to spend about an hour in the artistic mode of fine-tuning the attributes of the image.

I tend to approach my photography the same I do for my paintings and therefore I do not want others to freely play with them.

Niels Henriksen

Blog at http://www.niels-henriksen.blogspot.com/

I am not a professional photographer (I work on pen source scientific software), but still many of my images are high quality and suitable for reuse in many kinds of projects. I intentionally mark them all as freely licensable for all use because I like contributing to an open access society.

If you don't want your work used without attribution/permission/compensation, then don't CC it or clearly mark it with a restrictive license. Of course, with this model you risk being steamrolled by the open source movement, which is probably going to be the ultimate fate of everyone whose livelihood depends on a closed model.

The fact that people are getting away with this is ridiculous, I myself keep very good track of any of my work online. If someone were to take it and use it without my permisson they would be handing over millions (assuming they had that much) or take a felony hit and a nice prison sentence.

I agree it's not enough that sites like deviantart as an example provide watermarking however for my works security I like to add a random, and very well hidden amount of my own personal watermarks.

Unfortunately that's the only true way to stay safe posting your work online.

We live in sad times for sure.

_denise